Highway Committee

October 7, 2004, 8:30 a.m.

DRAFT Minutes

Present were: Paul Allen, Chairman; John Steger, Vice Chairman; Larry Cornell; Merwin Armstrong, Scott Elston; Steve Dafoe; Dan Tagliente, Scott Steve, Chairman of the Legislature

Others present: Ann Homer; Don Chambers; Bob Buerkle, Diane Bean, Davy Jones; Brian Lippatore; Scott Schrader, County Administrator

Chairman Allen called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

Mr. Elston moved the adoption of the minutes of the September 2, 2004, meeting; seconded by Mr. Tagliente. All members voting in favor; none opposed; minutes approved.

 

1. Engineering Services Agreement, Little York Dam, Approval of B&L Proposal – Mr. Allen reviewed the package of information from Barton and Loguidice regarding the proposal for engineering services for the Little York Dam Improvement Project. This is NOT for design, but only for engineering services. Mr. Tagliente asked if we solicited proposals from others. Mr. Buerkle indicated that our Engineering Services is with B & L. Mr. Dafoe asked when the Lake will be dropped. Mr. Buerkle indicated that it will be dropped October 15, 2004. Chairman Steve asked under what authority we have responsibility for maintenance of Little York Dam. Chairman Steve indicated that perhaps the Little York Lake Association should take over maintenance. Mr. Dafoe indicated that this would take us into a different realm. Mr. Buerkle indicated that the County constructed the dam and the control portions of the dam in the 1950’s and we rehabbed the dam in the 1980’s. Chairman Steve indicated that there is no State requirement for us to maintain the dam. Mr. Buerkle indicated that this dam does provide some flood control in the Spring. Mr. Buerkle was instructed in 1999 to inspect the dam and the assumption at that time was that the dam was our responsibility. Mr. Allen asked about the US Army Corp of Engineers. Mr. Buerkle indicated that they would not be involved in this project and they have no jurisdiction as far as ownership. Mr. Allen asked when the work would be done if approved today. Mr. Buerkle indicated that it would be done through the winter. Mr. Allen asked what would happen if we want until Spring and look into funding to do this. Mr. Elston indicated that he feels we should look into the history of the dam and the ownership. Mr. Dafoe indicated that a big chunk of the dam is falling apart. Mr. Buerkle is concerned as well about the condition of the dam. Mr. Elston asked if there is an immediate safety issue. Mr. Buerkle indicated that he doesn’t believe there is an immediate safety issue, but when does it become a safety issue? Mr. Schrader stated that we have taken on a liability with this dam and if something were to happen, we are liable, we have taken on the ownership, regardless of how that has occurred. We have a legal responsibility to maintain it and make sure it is sound. The other issue is that by virtue of the insurance coverage, one thing they asked for was an inspection report of these structures. The last one we have is from 1999, done in-house, and it was not necessarily that great at that time. The insurance company would like a new inspection of that structure, and Mr. Schrader told the insurance company we were in the process of evaluating this structure at this time. Chairman Steve indicated that perhaps we should fix it and then get rid of it. Mr. Schrader indicated that we should still go through the investigation of how and why we obtained it, but we still need to have this evaluation done as this time. Mr. Schrader indicated that we have some down stream erosion issues; a homeowner is complaining that the banks are eroding. There is also a footbridge in that area, and we would like to have the owner lift the foot bridge because we are limited by what we can do. The homeowner has allowed the County to look at the foot bridge issue, but they want us to look at the erosion issue, which is possibility caused by an erosion control device allegedly built by the County. Chairman Steve indicated that the key issue is that for work we have done in the past, we are liable now, so we really have to do this project, whether we like it or not. Chairman Steve indicated that after the dam is repaired, then we need to look at getting rid of the ownership. Mr. Buerkle indicated that the scope of the project is what it is because we have to meet the DEC regs. B & L will be deciding whether the dam needs to be rehabbed or rebuilt. Mr. Buerkle indicated that the proposal is a worst case scenario. Mr. Dafoe feels we should move it forward. Mr. Elston feels we should wait a month. Mr. Buerkle indicated if we wait a month, not much will get done this year because of the eminent weather conditions. Mr. Steger feels that we need to move forward now. Mr. Elston feels there is information missing, as far as the ownership issue. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Buerkle to contact Cathy Barber to see if she can help with the ownership issue. Mr. Schrader indicated that we will pursue the ownership issue and will meet with DEC. Mr. Dafoe indicated that the reason we control the water is the people historically fix their property in the winter time. Mr. Tagliente asked if we can assess each landowner a small fee for dam maintenance. Mr. Schrader indicated that we can look in to that as well if we create a special taxing district for water control. Mr. Cornell moved that we authorize this project in conjunction with investigation of the ownership of the property and responsibility for maintenance of the property; seconded by Mr. Tagliente. Mr. Elston asked if Soil and Water should be involved with this as well. Mr. Schrader will contact Mrs. Barber. All members voting in favor, motion adopted.

 

2. Recycling Rolling Equipment Purchase – Mr. Allen explained that this is all State contract equipment. Mr. Chambers has proposed in the budget for the Recycling Center the replacement of equipment that we have lost. He is proposing three pieces of equipment instead of the four that we formerly had. This is all State bid so that we don’t have to go to bid. Mr. Allen moved that we purchase equipment off state bid; seconded by Mr. Cornell. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

 

3. Mr. Allen indicated that committee members have been contacted by Doug Staley regarding building permit and other issues for construction of the Recycling Center. Mr. Allen indicated that the permit issues have been resolved and the code issues will be handled by Mr. Huttleston.

 

4. Mr. Allen inquired about the road width at Dwyer Parker. The County owns the property that the road is on. Mr. Staley is expressing concern about the location of the snow fence location. Mr. Buerkle indicated that the County owns the road and has provided the information on the right of way. Mr. Buerkle will look at the location of the snow fence.

 

5. Mr. Allen indicated there was a 15-20 gallon fuel spill at the Airport. There is a question whether or not FBO was purchasing the fuel directly or whether one of the clients at the airport is purchasing directly. If the FBO is buying the fuel and re-selling, that is supposed to happen with the County’s involvement; we should be getting a surcharge on the fuel. The greater issue is that the spill happened and DEC is involved. The County has been cleared of any involvement. It is between the FBO and the company trucking the fuel.

 

6. Mr. Allen indicated that Mr. Jones is here with interest on MH-1 lease. The Highway Department has a meeting on October 12 with Mr. Bardsley; they will discuss the issue with him and we will move forward. Mr. Jones asked if that means it is not going to bid. Mr. Allen indicated that if we need a special session, we will have one.

 

7. Mr. Allen indicated that the operator/mechanic from the Recycling Center has been doing the recycling work at the landfill has been injured off the job and therefore, Mr. Chambers is working short-handed at the landfill at this time. Chairman Steve indicated that work is being done with Soil and Water to hyrdo-seed the landfill; it will be done next Wednesday. Mr. Chambers does not have staff to be position at the dumpsters full-time because of the staff shortage. The absence is anticipated to be 12 weeks.

 

8. Mr. Allen indicated that the Administrative Assistant will be going for MUNIS training in October, along with some other County staff, to assist with her job.

9. Budget Review. Mr. Schrader reviewed the proposed Highway Department Budget with the committee. There are some deviations from 2004. The first has to do with seasonal help. In 2004, this help was cut from 14 to 7. In 2005, the request is for 14 positions. This is an increase of approximately $31,000, just in salary. Chairman Steve asked what happened with this cut. Mr. Buerkle indicated that we had higher-level staff doing the work that the seasonal help would do (e.g. truck drivers flagging). The other significant change is budgeting for new equipment. There is a $500,000 request which includes several pieces of new equipment. They are starting to try to request funding for replacement of the fleet. He will be sitting with the Highway staff to develop a long-term plan to replace equipment. Mr. Schrader indicated that we should have a fixed asset disposal policy which offers the items being disposed of to other municipalities before we send it to auction. Mr. Allen if the long-term capital budget is part of the budget and how much will be allocated in the first year. Mr. Schrader indicated that it has not yet been determined; it will be determined after he meets with Mr. Buerkle. Mr. Schrader also indicated that another significant change is the addition of the $500,000 request for paving, which is primary for maintenance not capital. This money has been removed from the budget the last several years. Mr. Tagliente asked where the responsibility of the County begins as far as the Towns are concerned. Every Town has a Public Works Department. The City of Cortland takes care of the City of Cortland. But what is the Town’s responsibility in the Town itself. Mr. Schrader indicated that the County is responsible for the County road and the Town is responsible for the Town road. This is generally determined by volume and what the road connects to (e.g. Interstate highway). Mr. Cornell indicated that he feels that we should look in to have the Towns plow some of the County roads that they travel daily to get to other Town roads. This could result in a cost savings. Mr. Elston reminded the committee that he raised this issue earlier in the year. Mr. Buerkle indicated that there is a great deal of cooperation between the Towns/Villages and the Counties. Mr. Allen indicated that he feels the CTVS could discuss how we could step up the cooperation between the municipalities and sharing of the responsibilities.

BACK